BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut forensic architectFairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architecture expert witnessFairfield Connecticut testifying construction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    2017 Colorado Construction Defect Recap: Colorado Legislature and Judiciary Make Favorable Advances for Development Community

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    Ambush Elections are Here—Are You Ready?

    Contrasting Expert Opinions Result in Denial of Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

    Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction

    Bill would expand multi-year construction and procurement authority in Georgia

    Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Vito John Marzano Secure Dismissal of Indemnification and Breach of Contract Claims Asserted against Subcontractor

    California Case That Reads Like Russian Novel Results in Less Than Satisfying Result for Both Project Owner and Contractors

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Including One Top 10 and Three Top 100 Washington Attorneys

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Just How Climate-Friendly Are Timber Buildings? It’s Complicated

    Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

    Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium

    U.K. Puts Tax on Developers to Fund Safer Apartment Blocks

    Owners Bound by Arbitration Clause on Roofing Shingles Packaging

    Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

    “I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties

    New Jersey School Blames Leaks on Construction Defects, May Sue

    Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower

    Billionaire Behind Victoria’s Secret Built His Version of the American Heartland

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    Arizona Is Smart About Water. It Should Stay That Way.

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit

    Global Emissions From Buildings, Construction Climb to Record Levels

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” List

    Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

    Contractual “Pay if Paid” and “Pay when Paid” Clauses? What is a California Construction Subcontractor to Do?

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

    "Is the Defective Work Covered by Insurance?"

    Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed

    Defining Constructive Acceleration

    GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    OSHA Advisory Committee, Assemble!
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    March 01, 2012 —

    The buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.

    The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”

    Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”

    The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.

    Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.

    The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.

    The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”

    The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

    September 19, 2022 —
    Risk allocation between the parties is a critical component of any construction contract. Indemnity obligations can be some of the important risk-shifting provisions of any design or construction contract. Indemnity provisions typically require one party, the Indemnitor, to agree to “hold harmless,” and/or reimburse another party, the indemnitee, from claims and liability arising out of the party’s work. Considering the financial consequences that an indemnity provision can have on a construction project, it is critical that all parties to a construction contract know the legal implications of the contract indemnity provisions and understand any limitations in enforcing the indemnity provisions depending on the controlling jurisdiction. While most indemnity clauses and obligations are enforceable, many states have enacted anti-indemnity statutes prohibiting or restricting specific indemnification provisions. These anti-indemnity statutes afford protection to contractors and subcontractors not generally in a position to protect themselves from overly extensive indemnity obligations. This article highlights several examples of indemnity provisions typically seen in construction contracts, the measures are taken by a growing number of states to protect parties with less bargaining power in the form of anti-indemnity statutes, and offers practical considerations when negotiating or drafting indemnity provisions.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin Kicklighter, Emory Law Student (2024 Graduate), (ConsensusDocs) and Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    January 17, 2013 —
    I previously wrote an article entitled “The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation” for the Common Interests magazine, the monthly periodical of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Community Associations Institute. In that article, I discussed the potential negative effects of homeowners associations bringing construction defect suits as anything other than a last resort. The purpose of this post is to bring to light, by way of a real life example, the problems discussed in my previous article.
     
    I have recently seen a lawsuit filed by an individual homeowner within a common interest community against the homeowners association, its management company, and the attorneys retained by the association to represent it in a construction defect lawsuit against the original developer, general contractor, and one of the design professionals. In his suit, the homeowner complains that the association’s construction defect attorneys “neglected to amend [their] complaint to include only and specifically the claims for damages for those properties, those buildings or condominium units, either by owner or specific locations, which had sustained damages or had faulty construction for which damages were being sought.” As a result of claiming damages throughout the entire community, the homeowner alleged that the entire community was tarred “with the black brush of litigation.”
     
    As the homeowner explained in his complaint, he purchased a condominium for his daughter-in-law when she moved to Colorado to care for him after the death of his wife. 
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain
    Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    August 30, 2017 —
    On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.” In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

    The Four Forces That Will Take on Concrete and Make Construction Smart

    September 17, 2018 —
    When it comes to building a bridge, what prevents it from having the most enduring and sustainable life span? What is its worst enemy? The answer is, simply, the bridge itself—its own weight. Built with today’s construction processes, bridges and buildings are so overly massed with energy and material that they’re inherently unsustainable. While concrete is quite literally one of the foundations of modern construction, it’s not the best building material. It’s sensitive to pollution. It cracks, stainsand collapses in reaction to rain and carbon dioxide. It’s a dead weight: Take San Francisco’s sinking, leaning Millennium Tower as an example. Reprinted courtesy of Massimiliano Moruzzi, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don’t Overlook Leading Edge Hazards

    May 20, 2019 —
    Leading edge hazards are often misunderstood and overlooked on today’s highly visible jobsites. Evidence is readily available via images shared on construction-related social media accounts. In the context of people showing pride for the hard work they do or the extreme conditions under which they work, posts offer glimpses into the methods employed to mitigate fall hazards. Alarmingly, many of these methods do not adhere to industry-accepted standards, especially in the case of leading edge applications. Mincing Words The definition of “leading edge” itself has undergone somewhat of a transformation since its introduction by OSHA to its current use by ANSI in the Z359.14-2014 “Safety Requirements for Self-Retracting Devices for Personal Fall Arrest and Rescue Systems” standard. OSHA defines a leading edge as an “unprotected side or edge during periods when it is actively or continuously under construction,” giving many the impression that a leading edge was a temporary condition found only during the construction of a structure. Reprinted courtesy of Baxter Byrd, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Byrd may be contacted at info@puresafetygroup.com

    Aurora Joins other Colorado Cities by Adding a Construction Defect Ordinance

    September 03, 2015 —
    According to the Aurora Sentinel, the city council of Aurora, Colorado, approved an ordinance targeted at making it more difficult for homeowners to sue builders over construction defect claims. Similar to other recent Colorado city construction defect measures, “the new rule gives builders the right to repair defects before the litigation is pursued, requires that the majority of home owners in a home owners association – as opposed to just a majority of HOA board members – approve of any lawsuits, and allows builders to offer monetary settlements to homeowners in lieu of repairs.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    November 18, 2011 —

    The court determined that the Faulty Workmanship Exclusion only barred coverage for damages arising from problems with the property under construction itself and not to losses incurred to correct damage from accidents during construction. See 1756 First Associates, LLC v. Continental Casualty Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117100 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2011).

    A tower crane collapsed at the construction site, causing damage. First Associates tendered the claim to its insurer, Continental. Continental reimbursed First Associates for certain costs arising from damage to and cleanup of the construction site and building stemming from the crane collapse. Continental refused, however, to reimburse First Associates for costs associated with construction delays resulting from the collapse.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of